your thoughts, no contract no rights?

[michael_]

a little discussion going on on another forum, he is the original questions asked


Hi Guys

My second wedding anniversary pasted this month.

A friend just called my to say that a photo from my wedding, which was taken by a professional photographer, has showed up in a wedding magazine she brought.

I never gave the photographer permission, did she need it?

I found this in the OCAU Wiki:

4) Commissioned photographs: If you took a commissioned photograph before the 30 July 1998, your client will own the copyright. If the photograph was taken after 30 July 1998, you own the copyright. The only exception to this rule is if the photograph was commissioned for a private or domestic purpose (like a wedding or christening). In this case your client owns the copyright, unless otherwise agreed.

What is the go?


and here is a link tot he thread (link (http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=553063))

my opinion is, no contract no rights, the photogs services were used that is all, the photog has the rights to the shots and can do with them what they please aslong as it is not selling the shots for advertising/marketing etc.

[ssim]

What was the general feeling on the forum. You have to register to see the thread you linked and the last thing I need is yet another registration.

I'm not clear on what the rules are in the absence of a contract. At the very minimum I think it would be a courtesy of the photographer to call and let them know they will be appearing in a magazine. My wedding contract stipulates that I can use them for marketing and other purposes and I have yet to have anyone question that part. I would still call the couple and let them know.

[michael_]

it seems 30:70 feel that without a contract the photog retains ownership the majority feel the client does.

I agree if i was the photog i would have been over the moon to see a shot in a magazine and would have been first to contact the client and let them know.

The way people are talking is if you pay someone to take shots you retain the copyright which i dont agree with and it has been in my experience the photog who retains them unless a contract is drawn up and agreed upon.

[MJPhotos24]

well, it seems to be on the line of "work for hire" which is a photographers worst enemy in many terms which has been discussed numerous times (legally and not). Overall, without a written contract the photographer owns the rights to the images to do what they want with and do not need a model release for editorial purposes such as a magazine or newspaper if the photo was obtained with permission in a public setting such as a wedding is. Legally, he can do what he has done since there's no contract. Ethically, I guess you can make an argument as some will say he should have asked permission or at least told the couple he'd submitted the photos for possible usage. I would think most couples would be happy with this, some however might not.

Legally though, photog didn't sign a work for hire contract means he owns the pics and can give them to pubications such as the one they were published in.





**Edit** That's US - down under not so sure about!

[Mark_Cohran]

So, where's the injury here? One of his weddding photos is in a magazine. Big deal. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. :) Here is the US, if there's no contract there's no issue. The photographer retains rights (see the post above from MJPhotos24 for a good write up).

Mark

[Longwatcher]

Just stating MY opinion here;

If there was no contract and presuming there was no model release, then it would depend on the cover in question. If it is truly editorial in nature (such as you might see on time/newsweek and the like ), then the photographer has all the rights. If however, the picture is only being used to promote the magazine (such as FHM, Cosmo, Vogue ) then more likely we have a image use issue and a model release should have been sought.

Without seeing the actual cover I can not form a fair opinion, other then to say, the photographer ethically should have made an attempt to get a model release from the bride.

Just my opinion, I am not a lawyer, for more accurate information seek a lawyer.

[DocFrankenstein]

If I was a client, I'd be upset. It's the principle.

It don't hire someone to take pictures and then publish them without my knowledge. A wedding is a private event. Not public.

[PhotoAttorney]

Copyright laws for weddings/hired work is different in some other countries. In the US, a photographer owns the copyrights to photos shot at wedding/anyplace unless there is a work for hire agreement or unless done for an employer (like a newspaper) and is part of the job.

For the person in the photo, no model release is required for editorial usage (but is required for commercial uses, to include advertisements, trade, endorsements).

Best,
Carolyn

[MazerRakhm]

The post said she never gave the photographer permission, but does that actually mean there was no contract for the wedding or he never called her?

If there was a wedding contract that could change things considerably, especially if permission to use the photos is in it.

[MJPhotos24]

If I was a client, I'd be upset. It's the principle.

It don't hire someone to take pictures and then publish them without my knowledge. A wedding is a private event. Not public.

That's why those "bennifer" wedding photos from guys hiding in bushes area in every magazine across the country. Cuz they're nice and private :)

[DocFrankenstein]

That's why those "bennifer" wedding photos from guys hiding in bushes area in every magazine across the country. Cuz they're nice and private :)
I'm not a celebrity just yet.